Adrienne Rae Pritchard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 16 2020, 8:23 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Myriam Serrano
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Adrienne Rae Pritchard, January 16, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2110
v. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jill D. Wesch,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
83C01-1804-F5-12
83C01-1903-F4-3
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Adrienne Ray Pritchard appeals her sentence after she pleaded guilty to
burglary, as a Level 4 felony. Pritchard raises one issue for our review, namely,
whether her sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and
her character.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In August 2018, Pritchard pleaded guilty to burglary, as a Level 5 felony, in
Cause Number 83C01-1804-F5-12 (“F5-12”). Pursuant to that guilty plea, the
trial court sentenced her to three years suspended to probation.
[4] On March 13, 2019, Pritchard entered Skyler McIntyre’s house through a
window while McIntyre was sleeping. Pritchard then took “multiple items”
from McIntyre’s house, including McIntyre’s cell phone. Tr. Vol. II at 7.
McIntyre confronted Pritchard, but Pritchard denied having taken the items.
McIntyre later contacted Pritchard’s girlfriend, who was able to locate
McIntyre’s cell phone and return it to her.
[5] The State charged Pritchard with burglary, as a Level 4 felony; residential entry,
a Level 6 felony; theft, as a Class A misdemeanor; and criminal mischief, as a
Class B misdemeanor, in Cause Number 83C01-1903-F4-3 (“F4-3”). In
addition, the State filed a petition to revoke Pritchard’s probation in F5-12.
Thereafter, Pritchard entered into a plea agreement with the State in which she
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6
agreed to plead guilty to burglary, as a Level 4 felony, in F4-3, and to admit to
the probation violation in F5-12. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the
remaining charges in F4-3. The court accepted Pritchard’s guilty plea and
entered judgment of conviction accordingly. Following a hearing, the court
revoked Pritchard’s placement on probation in F4-12 and ordered her to serve
the balance of her previously suspended sentence. The court also sentenced her
to six years, with three years executed in the Department of Correction and
three years on home detention in F4-3, which sentence was to be served
consecutive to her sentence in F5-12. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Pritchard contends that her six-year sentence in F4-3 is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and her character. 1 Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
provides that “[t]he Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after
due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence
is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender.” This court has recently held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the
starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the
crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
And the Indiana Supreme Court has recently explained that:
The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers . . . but not achieve a perceived “correct”
1
On appeal, Pritchard does not challenge her sentence in F5-12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6
result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007),
decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).
Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).
[7] Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate
sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court’s judgment “should
receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we
regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of
the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and myriad other facts that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.
The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather
whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265,
268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless
overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the
offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the
defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples
of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).
[8] The sentencing range for a Level 4 felony is two years to twelve years, with an
advisory sentence of six years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5.5 (2019). Here,
Pritchard’s plea agreement left sentencing open to the discretion of the trial
court, and the court sentenced her to the advisory sentence of six years, with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6
three years executed in the Department of Correction and three years to be
served on home detention.
[9] On appeal, Prichard contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense because the offense was “minor,” she accepted
responsibility, and McIntyre recovered her property. Appellant’s Br. at 9. And
Prichard contends that her sentence is inappropriate in light of her character
because her criminal history only consists of offenses that were “minor and not
violent in nature,” and because she “has struggled with a serious drug
addiction” and “serious mental health disorders.” Id. at 9.
[10] However, Prichard has not met her burden on appeal to demonstrate that her
sentence is inappropriate. With respect to the nature of the offense, Pritchard
broke into McIntyre’s home through a window while McIntyre was asleep and
stole “multiple items,” including a cell phone. Tr. Vol. II at 7. Further, while
McIntyre received her property back, it was not because Pritchard returned the
items. Rather, Pritchard’s girlfriend, who was a friend of McIntyre, returned
the phone. Pritchard has not presented compelling evidence portraying the
nature of the offenses in a positive light. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.2d at 122.
[11] As to her character, Pritchard is only twenty-three years old and already has a
criminal history that spans two states and includes two prior felony convictions,
including a prior conviction for burglary. Further, Pritchard has been given
opportunities to avoid incarceration in the past through alternative sentences in
both Indiana and Illinois, but she continues to commit crimes. Indeed,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6
Pritchard was on probation for two prior offenses when she committed the
instant offense.
[12] Still, Pritchard asserts that her sentence is inappropriate because the instant
offense constituted a violation of her probation in F5-12, which violation
resulted in the court revoking her probation and imposing the balance of her
previously suspended sentence. In essence, Pritchard contends that her six-year
sentence for the instant offense is inappropriate because she already has to serve
“several years in prison as a result of the probation violation.” Appellant’s Br.
at 9. Pritchard’s argument on this point is not well taken. We acknowledge
that Pritchard has been ordered to serve the balance of her previously
suspended sentence in a prior case because she violated the terms of her
probation. But we cannot say that her sentence for the instance offense is
inappropriate simply because the offense triggered the revocation of her
probation in another case. Rather, as discussed above, Pritchard has a criminal
history that reflects poorly on her character.
[13] We conclude that Pritchard’s six-year advisory sentence, with three years
executed in the Department of Correction and three years on home detention, is
not inappropriate. We therefore affirm Pritchard’s sentence.
[14] Affirmed.
Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2110 | January 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6